[¶
1] Ronald Rogers, Jr., appeals from a judgment denying his
application for post-conviction relief and orders denying his
post-hearing motions to amend the findings of fact and for a
new trial. Because the district court did not err in ruling
that Rogers received effective assistance of trial counsel or
abuse its discretion in denying the post-hearing motions, we
affirm the district court's judgment denying the request
for post-conviction relief.

I

[¶
2] Rogers conditionally pled guilty to murdering his wife and
to willful disturbance of a dead body, reserving the right to
appeal the district court's denial of his motion to
suppress his confession to police based on a lack of
Miranda warnings and involuntariness. In State
v. Rogers, 2014 ND 134, ¶ 30, 848 N.W.2d 257, this
Court affirmed the conviction, concluding "Rogers was
not in police custody when he confessed to the crimes and his
confession was voluntary." Pertinent to this proceeding,
this Court explained:

Looking at the totality of the facts, we conclude Rogers'
confession was voluntary. Applying the first prong, the
characteristics and condition of the accused at the time of
the confession, the district court found, "[Rogers] had
taken a sleep aid, but was not otherwise under the influence
of drugs or alcohol. [Rogers] indicated that he felt good or
fine on more than one occasion." The court also found
"[Rogers] denied being suicidal, and any mental health
issues he may have been experiencing at the time were not
significant enough to delay his release." The court
additionally noted Rogers' medical assessments appeared
to be in the normal ranges. The court determined there was no
indication that the sleep aid Trazadone affected his
cognitive abilities. The district court's findings are
supported by sufficient competent evidence, as indicated by
the testimony of the detectives and [Rogers' hospital
RN].

Id. at ¶ 28.

[¶
3] Rogers filed an application for post-conviction relief
contending he received ineffective assistance of counsel in
the district court because his attorney did not adequately
attack the validity of his confession by pointing out his
altered mental state caused by the combination of his
excessive blood alcohol level and contemporaneous use of
Trazadone. Following a hearing, the district court denied the
application because Rogers failed to demonstrate his trial
attorney's representation was deficient. The court also
denied his motions to amend the findings and for a new trial.
Subsequent to filing the notice of appeal Rogers filed a
motion to correct the record which was also denied by the
district court.

II

[¶
4] Rogers argues the district court erred in ruling he
received effective assistance of counsel from his trial
attorney.

[¶
5] To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim,
Rogers must show: 1) his counsel's representation fell
below an objective standard of reasonableness; and 2) there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would
have been different. See, e.g., Booth v.
State, 2017 ND 97, ¶ 7, 893 N.W.2d 186. The second
prong is satisfied in the context of a guilty plea if the
defendant shows there is a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel's errors, he would not have pled guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial. Id. at ¶
9. Whether a defendant received ineffective assistance of
counsel is a mixed question of fact and law fully reviewable
on appeal. Id. at ¶ 7.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&para;
6] Rogers&#39; arguments focus on his trial attorney&#39;s
failure to stress Rogers&#39; extreme intoxication, coupled
with the effects of Trazadone, at the time he was questioned
by police and confessed. In particular, Rogers focuses on our
prior decision that quoted the district court&#39;s
determination that Rogers "was not otherwise under the
influence of drugs or alcohol." Rogers, 2014 ND
134, &para; 28, 848 N.W.2d 257. Rogers argues that this is
contrary to the record which clearly establishes that he was
under the influence of both alcohol and drugs at the time of
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.